Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt

[Thomas Dietz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

I am currently editing the new version of the PSAMP MIB addressing your
review comment. Please also find some comments inline in this mail.

-- 
Thomas Dietz
NEC Europe Ltd., NEC Laboratories, Network Research Division, 69115
Heidelberg, Germany

NEC Europe Limited, Registered in England 2832014
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:19 PM
> To: IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have performed the AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt.
> This document is in good shape and I am sending it to IETF Last Call.
> Please address the comments below together with the other IETF LC
> comments.
> 
> The technical comments are marked T and the editorial comments are
> marked E.
> 
> T1.
> 
>         Float64TC
>            FROM FLOAT-TC-MIB           -- draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float
> 
> Actually will need to be published before or simultaneously with this
> document, in order to satisfy the normative reference. Leaving
> draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float would be confusing, we need the RFC number
> here. I suggest to include here (as a comment) a note to the RFC Editor
> that mentions that draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float is to be replaced with
> the RFC number of that document, and the note deleted.
> 

Done.

> T2. Why do psampSampCountBasedAvail, psampSampTimeBasedAvail,
> psampSampRandOutOfNAvail, psampSampUniProbAvail,
> psampFiltPropMatchAvail, psampFiltHashAvail have DEFVAL clauses? These
> are read-only objects, so the values must be configured by some other
> means (not by SNMP) and just read by the agent.
> 

The values depend on what the manufacturer of the equipment has implemented
in his hard- or software. So basically a DEFVAL cannot be given here.

> T3. There is no need to include the following in the IANA considerations
> section:
> 
>            psampSampCountBased    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 2 }
>            psampSampTimeBased     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 3 }
>            psampSampRandOutOfN    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 4 }
>            psampSampUniProb       { ipfixSelectorFunctions 5 }
>            psampFiltPropMatch     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 6 }
>            psampFiltHash          { ipfixSelectorFunctions 7 }
> 
> These are already assigned in the MIB module and no IANA action is
> required for them.
> 
> 

Done.

Best Regards,

Thomas

> E1. The contents of sections 3 and 4 are similar, but the formatting of
> the texts in the two sections is different. I suggest to fix this using
> for section 4 the same format as in section 3, which is easier to read.
> 
> E2. Page 5 - second paragraph s/as defiend/as defined/
> 
> E3. Please explain the meaning of each enumerated value in the
> DESCRIPTION clause of psampFiltHashFunction
> 
> E4. Please detail the 'corresponding sampling function' in the
> DESCRIPTION clause of each one of the conformance groups under
> MODULE-COMPLIANCE.
> 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix